IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@roger,

Yes we were. About whether people working in more risky environments are discriminated against by those working in less risky ones which usually are better paid as well and very often less useful.

One might argue whether those working in the health insurance business are any use at all or even of negative use. What would their health insurance premiums be compared to those of a miner, say? Or a trucker.

I only asked. Health insurance charges here are levied by the government and are scaled according to income. And neither the right or the centre or the left opposes it. It's practically sacred.

1 Reply

@spendius,

No you weren't, and you continue to discuss risky environments instead of who should be subsidizing whom.

As to the risky environments, if you mean company sponsered insurance, no. Everyone in the company has the same rate; mail clerk, accountant, and underground miner. The workers' compensation insurance assessments vary enormously from one classification to another, and this is entirely distinct from the health care issue.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Whatever the factors are - we ought to be looking at other places and finding out how they keep their costs so low, while extending the lifetimes of their citizens! It isn't good enough to say 'they are a different place then us' and leave it at that. Not acceptable.

It's equally a dodge to say their citizens are 'just healthier.' That's bullshit. I suppose you could be referring to dietary and lifestyle choices, but without persuasive evidence, it's hard to take that argument seriously.

And it isn't like it's a secret why their costs are so low in many places... single-payer health care or socialized health care removes a huge amount of waste and profiteering, and gets rid of hundreds of thousands of unnecessary paperwork jobs.

One way or another, the idea that the US has the best healthcare in the world is a complete joke. It is not supported by the data.

Cycloptichorn

I think the problem with a lot of those "factors" is that they won't fly in this country. I don't see how other countries having healthier people is bullshit. There is tons of persuasive evidence all over the place. There have been many articles and papers comparing the health of a population by country. Here are a few:

http://blog.healia.com/00222/top-15-healthiest-countries-world
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-worlds-healthiest-countries/
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/07/health-world-countries-forbeslife-cx_avd_0408health.html

So you're claiming that you know, for a fact, that the reason they spend less on health care is because of a single-payer system? Do you happen to have any evidence to support that?

I'm glad you mentioned jobs... Just how many do you think will be lost if Anthem goes out of business?

As for the "best" healthcare... superlatives aren't much use without the context in which they are measured. Who says that being inexpensive makes something better? That seems to be all you care about.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

Quote:

I think the problem with a lot of those "factors" is that they won't fly in this country.

I don't believe in this assertion. You don't know what will and won't fly in this country. If you take a close look at how many aspects of our society have changed in the last century, it's really difficult to make statements like that - our country has been in a constant state of change for a while, so obviously the citizens of the US ARE able to adapt to changing situations.

Quote:

I don't see how other countries having healthier people is bullshit. There is tons of persuasive evidence all over the place. There have been many articles and papers comparing the health of a population by country. Here are a few:

The people you are talking about are not innately, genetically healthier then the US is. They have cultural and practical differences in their health care which lead them to live healthier lives. These are things we could do as well, but have not done so. That's why it's wrong to state that people are 'just healthier' in other countries - it's fatuous, assuming that there's nothing that can be done to IMPROVE the health of citizens in this country.

Sort of like when you asserted that Americans' weren't going to give up their cigarettes a few pages back, only to be shown that this is exactly what has been done over the last 40 years.

What gives the further lie to the idea that people are inherently healthier, and that's what leads to their longer lifespans, is an actual examination of the countries in question. You mention smoking as one of our huge problems; but the number 1 country on the list in terms of life expectancy, Japan, has a huge incidence of smoking. Britain and France, both higher then the US on the list (and much, much lower in terms of dollars spent) have traditional diets which are far from healthy. Yet somehow they seem to manage their health care better then we do, and for EVERYONE, not just those with a lot of money.

Quote:

I'm glad you mentioned jobs... Just how many do you think will be lost if Anthem goes out of business?

Who gives a ****? Not me. Keeping highly inefficient parasites attached to our system in order to protect useless jobs is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Quote:

As for the "best" healthcare... superlatives aren't much use without the context in which they are measured. Who says that being inexpensive makes something better? That seems to be all you care about.

It's not just cost, it's also quality. Other countries seem to pay less and get longer lifespans out of it; that is a sign that we should be emulating that which brings them success, not simply throwing up our hands (as you would) and fighting to protect an inefficient system which costs a lot of money and doesn't deliver results.

Besides, you will note that it was Okie who claimed that America had the 'best' health care, not I.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Now we have a member of Congress harassing private companies that say they will lose money because of this health insurance reform debacle...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/30/shut_up_he_argues_104977.html

Quote:

Henry Waxman is peeved. He expects corporate America to swallow health-care reform without a peep of protest -- and, apparently, without revealing new costs to shareholders or the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Last week, AT&T announced it will take an immediate $1 billion write-down thanks to a new tax in the health bill that will cause Caterpillar ($100 million) and Deere & Co. ($150 million), among other large employers, to do the same. The benefits consultancy Towers Watson estimates that the change may reduce corporate profits by as much as $14 billion over time.

That's real money. For comparison: It's enough to bribe Sen. Ben Nelson of the Cornhusker Kickback 140 times over; it's three times the amount Democrats poured into a (failing) weatherization program that once was a highlight of the stimulus bill; it represents 10 percent of the supposed deficit reduction of health-care reform over 10 years

Quote:

Citing the Congressional Budget Office, Waxman says his concern is that the write-downs appear "to conflict with independent analyses." If he's genuinely surprised at the real world departing from CBO projections, he should brace himself for more shocks. Is he going to demand that OMB Director Peter Orszag testify when the projected deficit reduction doesn't materialize?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Do you know why they are bitching, MM? Do you do any analysis at all before you show up here to bitch about the Democrats and whatever issue you read about today?

These companies are bitching because the new regulations no longer allow them to deduct from their taxes money that the US Government gives them to subsidize their health care. Seriously - we were giving them money and then allowing them to deduct the expenses from their taxes even after we've been paying them!

The change to the rule ends a subsidy of taxes for US companies that never should have existed in the first place - and it was put in place by Bush and the Republican congress. Read for yourself -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30subsidy.html

Amazing that people are bitching that we are ending the practice of giving free money to companies which frankly don't need it. The companies are bitching because they are losing profits that they never earned in the first place, and instead of taking it out of their own coffers, they are threatening their workers' health plans. It's despicable and not something you should support, MM.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Henry Waxman is peeved. . . .

. . . If he's genuinely surprised at the real world departing from CBO projections, he should brace himself for more shocks. Is he going to demand that OMB Director Peter Orszag testify when the projected deficit reduction doesn't materialize?

It has been noted before that CBO is required to take bills at face value, and it is very unlikely that this little bit of information regarding private pension plans was submitted to it. When calculating future deficits, they may even have had to accept certain optimistic estimates of economic growth.

Actually, I doubt this will be anything like the largest unintendend consequence. I seem to recall that Exxon lost something on the order of two bucks per share in earnings over the Exxon Valdez spill, and that was a disaster.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I understand why they are bitching, so your assumption was as usual WRONG.

However, how does that give Waxman or any other congresscritter the right to try and intimidate them?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I understand why they are bitching, so your assumption was as usual WRONG.

However, how does that give Waxman or any other congresscritter the right to try and intimidate them?

Intimidate them into what, exactly? You haven't shown how they are 'intimidating' anyone. I'm quite sure that Waxman simply wants to get these clowns on the record defending the fact that they are bitching about subsidies that the Federal government granted them under Bush, being removed. I doubt that they will garner much sympathy with the American people at this time with such an argument.

Dude, you're a nice guy and light-years better then many of the Conservatives who post here; but do you really support the government handing free money to big business for no reason? How can you support that?

And if you don't, why are you posting here as if it's a mistake or problem for the Democrats?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I do understand those subsidies were granted in exchange for prescription coverage for retirees, who would otherwise have ended up on the Medicare coverage. I would be willing to bet the retirees themselves got the better part of the bargain.

2 Replies

@roger,

They always do. People over 50 have done wonders for themselves, at the expense of the younger citizens.

0 Replies

Some of you conservatives do not seem to realise that you have got a new type of president. He doesn't do sophistry it seems to me.

He means business. And he's just won 30 million votes.

Louis XVIth and the Ancien Regime were in good form on the back of screwing the population.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

MM bitches just about as much as gungasnake does.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

No you weren't, and you continue to discuss risky environments instead of who should be subsidizing whom.

As to the risky environments, if you mean company sponsered insurance, no. Everyone in the company has the same rate; mail clerk, accountant, and underground miner. The workers' compensation insurance assessments vary enormously from one classification to another, and this is entirely distinct from the health care issue.

I'm not sure, but I think there may be more factors in play here in regard to your subject of high risk jobs. I think one aspect of that would be workers comp insurance, which would account for a percentage of insurance coverage of high risk work or employment, and I am pretty sure that workers comp insurance is far higher for high risk jobs. The reason I know this is as an employer in a business, I see there is a big difference in rates. Additionally, vehicle insurance for truck drivers and all of that would add another vector to the cost of high risk employment. Then consider the fact that private behavior aside from employment high risk may be a separate issue, and this is also taken into account if you buy your own insurance, because smoking, drinking, and overweight lifestyles will cost more I think. Of course there are ways not to be honest when making application for insurance, and perhaps group insurance through an employer may be tougher for insurance companies to identify those people with very high risk lifestyles.

I still think your point, and my point, is very salient in regard to trying to tweak the system so that the medical insurance industry can rate lifestyles and risks and make them responsive to the costs involved.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

One of the reasons why people from other countries are healthier is they're not afraid to walk. The summer my daughter worked as a translator for a tour company in Boston, she came home daily with reports on how the Europeans always walked to any site (Boston is small enough that one can do it easily) while Americans always asked, How far is it? When told about six blocks, they would whine for a cab.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I do understand those subsidies were granted in exchange for prescription coverage for retirees, who would otherwise have ended up on the Medicare coverage. I would be willing to bet the retirees themselves got the better part of the bargain.

What do you mean 'in exchange?' It was nothing more then a handout to big business. These companies were all making handsome profits in 2003 and could eat the additional costs without even blinking. Why did they deserve this additional money?

Because the Republicans like giving tax breaks to big business, that's why.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@spendius,

You may be right, Spendius, he may indeed have won thirty million votes. However, it has not shown up in the polls yet. Indeed, the latest poll( yesterday) by USA Today and GALLUP show that the President's Job Approval is pegged at 50% disapproval and 47% approval. That is the lowest Job Approval rating Obama has ever received from Gallup. But perhaps when the thirty million find out about the goodies they will get the Job Approval rating will zoom upward>

0 Replies

@okie,

That sounds like you concede the point okie.

The nice low risk occupations, in the ladies beautification industry say or processing health insurance claims or arguing about them in courts or peddling twaddle in Media offices, are not only higher paid than unhealthy jobs in garbage disposal, truck driving, mining, lumberjacking and steel making, say, but have lower premiums to pay as well because of the lower risks they are taking.

That seems un-American to me.

0 Replies

Spendius-- You may be interested in the following. The pre-existing condition section of the bill will not fall into place before 2014. By that time Obama will be history and the full thrust of the Repeal and Replace will have come into play. There is nothing wrong with covering those who have pre-existing condtions but there are better ways to do it which will not bankrupt the US government.

Stay tuned.

Note:

.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.By Peter Grier, Staff writer / March 24, 2010

Washington
In America, people with health problems but no health insurance long have struggled to find and afford coverage. To those with such preexisting conditions, America’s health system has seemed, at the least, capricious: Why has it been so hard to get insurance when you need it most?

.Insurers have seen this same problem from another viewpoint. Selling coverage to someone with a preexisting condition might be a bit like selling auto insurance to a driver who wants help with an already-dented car. Insurance is meant to protect someone against future events, not pay for things that have already occurred.

Well, the healthcare reform bill signed into law Tuesday by President Obama will end this situation by outlawing denial of insurance coverage to those with preexisting conditions. It is one of the most popular individual provisions in the entire 2,000-plus-page legislation.

Healthcare 101: What the bill means to you

But this change won’t take full effect for years.

The rollout starts with children. Six months from the day the bill was signed (let’s see ... that’ll be Sept. 23, by our calculation), insurers will no longer be able to exclude children with preexisting conditions from being covered by their family policy. For current policies, that means insurers will have to rescind preexisting-condition exclusions.

Insurers will not have to take the same steps for adults until Jan. 1, 2014.

Why will it take so long? Because it will be years before the bill’s mandate that individuals have health insurance takes effect. The mandate is expected to bring in tens of millions of new customers for insurance firms " compensation for accepting customers with preexisting conditions, which can be expensive.

The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014 partly because it will take a long time to set up the state-run exchanges at which individuals and small-business employees will be able to comparison-shop for policies.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Of course, Waxman is and was a master intimidator. A man from a safe seat from Los Angeles--where there are more freeloaders and scumbums per square yard than anywhere else in the USA.

Note:

Since higher insurance penalties must be paid by corporations, many of those same corporations are having to reduce services to their employees and retirees. That makes the healthcare bill look bad, so Waxman is demanding these corporations bring seven years worth of backup data to support these claims. This is public bullying and an egregious attempt to intimidate and control private corporations. If I own stock in a corporation, I don't want the government making decisions that will limit income because that directly impacts my earnings. Nobody will want to invest in a corporation that is run under any other sort of scenario. Yet Waxman as committee chair takes it upon himself to call on the carpet all of these CEO's with the goal being intimidation overall. I want this hearing to be public. I want every minute of it recorded and I want Waxman removed from his position for absolute abuse of his power.

************************************************************************

I will be so happy when Waxman is in the minority again. He is getting old so perhaps we will be rid of him soon

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know